RSS Feed MenuI don’t usually respond to personal criticism. I write to reach a public audience about public issues. I don’t wish to be drawn into side disputes.
But I’m going to make an exception today and reply to this long post by John Hawkins over at Right Wing News.
Hawkins runs the conservative blogads hive. When FrumForum applied for entry, Hawkins refused. He gives an explanation here of his reasons.
Take a look, I’ll wait right here.
. . .
OK, you back?
Observe a few things:
1) Observe that Hawkins does not say, “We denied FrumForum admission to the conservative hive because they are not conservatives.” He did not say that because it would be too obviously ludicrous to do so. His complaint rather is that we are conservatives who do too much self-criticism.
[T]he mainstream media loves “conservatives” and “Republicans” who will trash whomever the Left hates most. So, if you’re willing to talk about how Sarah Palin is a hick, Glenn Beck is a crank, Rush Limbaugh is bad for the country, and the Tea Party is bad for democracy, the mainstream media will reward you – and because conservatives pride themselves on being open minded, they’ll all too often give you a pass for your atrocious behavior — especially since the MSM doesn’t insist you play their game all the time. As long as you’re willing to say what they want about the people they hate the most, they’ll reward you with a cover story at Newsweek and then in your off time, you can churn out a few articles to point gullible conservatives towards while you’re trying to guilt them into taking you seriously by crying “epistemic closure!”
Hawkins does not argue that these statements are false – that e.g. Glenn Beck is not a crank. His point is that regardless of truth, these criticisms should not occur. Or anyway, that no conservative should engage in them. Our job is to fall into line and not notice that Beck is in fact a crank or that Palin is not well-informed or that the Tea Party has saddled the Republicans with awful and probably doomed candidates like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul.
Hawkins’ attitude here reminds me of an ancient definition of a political party: “It doesn’t matter what damn lie we tell, so long as we all tell the same damn lie.”
2) Observe next Hawkins’ suggestion as to WHY we do the things we do. It’s not to be considered that we might be trying to solve important problems, even possibly in a wrongheaded way. No – we are total cynics motivated by greed for liberal $.
This point recurs again and again in his blogpost.
“Guys like Frum want to have it both ways. Being a “Republican / conservative” who tells liberals what they want to hear about the Right is a career niche — and it can pay big dividends.”
“This is what David Frum does for a living — and don’t think he doesn’t know it.”
“Everybody has to make a living. But, I’m not interested in helping people like Frum play this little game where they try to cripple conservatives publicly while coming around on the back end to milk us for money. If Frum wants to be a dancing monkey for the Left, let them come up with the money to pay for the tune.”
Now this is really amazing. We live in a world in which conservative radio hosts actually tape commercials for everything from gold coins to adjustable mattresses. Rush Limbaugh frankly acknowledged to an admiring Zev Chafets: “First and foremost I’m a businessman. My first goal is to attract the largest possible audience so I can charge confiscatory ad rates. I happen to have great entertainment skills, but that enables me to sell airtime.” Sarah Palin deserted her elected office before her term to cash in her economic opportunities. And yet it is I who am supposed to be prostituting my principles for money?
The truth, of course, is just the opposite. A lucre-seeking cynic would do much better to conform to conservative groupthink than to challenge it.
3) Hawkins asks with some apparent indignation:
That begs a question: why is David Frum getting a column at CNN? How is it that Time has a guy like this writing for them? What’s the purpose of putting a guy like Frum on TV as opposed to all the genuine conservatives who dwarf his traffic and can obviously draw a bigger crowd?”
It’s a fascinatingly revealing question.
Hawkins seems to be suggesting that we go on TV not as individuals, to express our own ideas as best we can, to offer the most useful information we can discover. No – people should appear as representatives of pre-existing tribes: conservatives, liberals, blacks, whatever, to engage in a ritual of synchronized repetition of pre-existing phrases. You are a conservative? You must say THIS – and never that. You must approve THIS – and never admit to doubts about that.
Hawkins asks: “What’s the point of putting Frum on TV?” Take him seriously though and you have to wonder: What’s the point of putting ANYONE on TV when the job could be so easily automated?
* * *
This exchange originated as a sidebar to a discussion of Dave Weigel and JournoList. I expressed disapproval of the whole JournoList enterprise. It looked to me like a device for creating and enforcing groupthink. I complained that it created an undisclosed editorial relationship, in which writers would be monitored and constrained by co-ideologues.
Since my post, a number of participants in JournoList have insisted that no such thing happened. Here for example is Jon Chait, here’s Michael Tomasky, and here on the FrumForum site is Rich Yeselson. On the other hand, here is blogger Scott Winship who participated in the listserve and contends that the list did indeed consolidate conventional liberal views. That seems to me a much more plausible description of how groups like JournoList actually function. On the other hand, I was not there.
But here’s something I can say: Whether Chait, Tomasky and the others are right about JournoList – or whether Winship is right that it did have more effect than participants now acknowledge – they all agree that it would be a bad thing to negotiate behind-the-scenes a liberal orthodoxy that could not be debated in public. There’s a lot wrong with today’s liberalism, but that agreement at least represents a sign of health. It’s a health that many of us are working to restore to the conservative world: not FrumForum alone, but many others as well. I have no doubt at all that we will prevail.
franco 2 // Jul 1, 2010 at 8:58 am
DeepSouthPopulist
Though I don’t agree with you about the wars, I respect your point of view. I am a conservative /libertarian hybrid and the conservative part of me understands that we have to accept the world as it is and respond accordingly. The world is not a democracy or a republic and it never will be. It is more like a prison in the sense that raw power rules and one person or one gang won’t change it. Once you relinquish power, another gang will take that power. The war in Iraq DID accomplish something – we got Sadaam. If some thug – a sworn enemy of the USA – keeps sticking his finger in our eye well it might be worthwhile to off him and take our lumps. Nevermind we are sent to solitary or have a few years tacked onto our sentence, the other gang leaders know that they can’t bully you. If, and I admit it is a big “if”, Iraq becomes a relatively stable country in the ME, then the payoff in geopolitics for the USA will be huge.
Afghanistan was similar. The message is you can’t allow terrorists to freely operate in your country and attack the US without consequences.
Where guys like Ron Paul go wrong is that they seem not to understand that any withdrawal of our troops from South Korea, Japan, Europe and closing bases there inhibits our ability to respond to potential threats. Worse still, it sends a signal to our enemies and our allies too. Afghanistan is now being lost politically because Obama telegraphed our exit date. Anticipating the US departure people have to chose sides (think gangs again) and Karzai wants to live, so he’s already making deals with the Taliban. The whole effort will have been pointless if that happens. You could say, “It was pointless anyway” and perhaps you’d be right. However, once committed to a fight it is much less dangerous (in the prison setting, again) to carry it through rather than capitulate because that will make other fights MUCH more difficult to win and cost more blood and treasure. Vietnam was a DOUBLE mistake. It was a mistake to go there, but even worse not to win. That more than anything else is costing us now in Iraq and Afghanistan, because they have the template they know works. They think (know?) they can outlast us, that they can work the political angles and the anti-war sentiments, etc. Had we won decisively in Vienam they may have given up by now.
This same thing would occur around the globe. North Korea would promptly invade the South for example, China would bully Taiwan and much more. The USA would lose every ounce of trust from friends and potential friends and allies. Our enemies will be emboldened. We would be isolated and alone. The world would re-align under another power axis and then we would be next. Just like a gang in prison. So the question is which gang do you want to belong to, not whether the world shroud be free of gangs, and since we have a powerful gang why cede power to these thugs?
When I look at the world today under the USA’s hegemony I believe it is far better off than, say under China’s or Russia’s hegemony. It’s pretty easy to verify. Look at Eastern Europe post WWII till now vs Western Europe ostensibly under USA’s “imperialist occupation” . Kind of laughable when put that way, no?
Speaking of “imperialist”, Japan WAS imperialist and we have troops there today, but that does not make us imperialists. I doubt many Japanese wish for us to close our bases there. We won that war and Japan ultimately thrived. That’s not what would have happened had Japan won the war to the countries they occupied. There is a huge difference. The Japanese we big time racists and any cursory look at how they conducted themselves during WWII shows we were fully justified in fighting them to the death, and STILL we rebuilt their country and gave them a second chance.
Lastly Ron Paul arguments could have been applied to WWII just as well. I doubt whether, once Hitler and Stalin and Hirohito prevailed in their initial conquests that they’d stop there. Ultimately we’d be speaking Russian, German or Japanese and they would have executed a good many innocent Americans on the way. The world is a badass place, my friend, and there are no easy solutions.
CentristNYer // Jul 1, 2010 at 9:40 am
Rabiner // Jun 30, 2010 at 11:56 pm
“An emphasis on liberty and social and cultural conservatism are in direct conflict with each other. Either people should have the liberty to do what they choose when it does not impact the lives of others directly or they shouldn’t.”
Thanks, Rabiner; you’ve totally nailed it. The tea partiers are so clueless about this paradox because the vast majority of them have a bumper sticker mentality. Like DeepSouthPopulist and Franco, they spout nonsensical talking points with no depth or real meaning.
I’ve never understood why they even bother coming to a site like this one when there are thousands of blogs that pander to that kind of thinking.
franco 2 // Jul 1, 2010 at 10:11 am
Hey center-left NYer,
Freedom does not consist exclusively in the “personal” domain. You and Rabiner have half your brains missing if you don’t understand that the ability to keep the fruits of your labor isn’t a HUGE part of freedom. Regardless of even the most socially conservative Republican can’t really regulate what you and Rabiner do in your bedrooms and I have to say your side is downright paranoid when it comes to these things, but government CAN take money from you quite easily, and force you to do things you otherwise wouldn’t. But I guess you losers don’t pay taxes or own businesses And by the way Democrats are not going to legalize drugs either, unfortunately.
Funny how my posts are much longer and more nuanced than yours and your pals and you are accusing me of a “bumper sticker mentality” You guys are projecting again.
franco 2 // Jul 1, 2010 at 10:15 am
Funny how JJWFROM ME picks on my name trying to associate me with a dead dictator in three of his/her posts and DFL says in effect that Rush Limbaugh’s only message in 15 hours of weekly talk is “I hate Democrats” and these are supposed to be non-bumpersticker arguments?
Oh and BTW JJ, you need not apologize as I was not harmed by your attempt to associate me with Francisco Franco, YOU were.
LFC // Jul 1, 2010 at 10:57 am
franco 2 said… LFC Responds to my claim “Frum doesn’t take on Limbaugh or any strong conservatives ideologically…”
With, “That’s because their “ideology” consists of “I hate Democrats”.”
Hahahahaha. Obviously you don’t listen to Limbaugh. …believe what you wish but anyone who knows the facts is laughing at you.
Do you mean people who actually note what Limbaugh says, fact checks these things, and then create a list of the vast number of lies he tells? You might want to read this list (for comprehension) and pick up a copy of Al Franken’s actually well researched “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.”
But that’s OK, Mr. Bubble. You just cling to what Rush tells you.
CentristNYer // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:12 am
franco 2 // Jul 1, 2010 at 10:11 am
“Funny how my posts are much longer and more nuanced than yours and your pals and you are accusing me of a “bumper sticker mentality””
Um, drivel doesn’t count as content, unless you’re a disciple of Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity.
And the idea that any of your posts are “nuanced” is officially the funniest thing ever to appear on Frum Forum. You really deserve a prize for that one.
anchovy // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:20 am
From Hawkins website today:
“Let me also add that Frum’s last line there is particularly funny — “A lucre-seeking cynic would do much better to conform to conservative groupthink than to challenge it.” Really? Because it’s no surprise that an unaccomplished airhead like Meghan McCain has a column in the Daily Beast. David Brooks? He’s a very fuzzy thinker — so why does he have a gig at the New York Times? How is it that Kathleen Parker of all people is getting a new TV show on CNN? David, why do you think you have a column at CNN? Do you think Newsweek would have given you a cover story if you were going to say nice things about Rush Limbaugh?”
He is tearing Frum a new one
http://rightwingnews.com/2010/06/right-wing-news-vs-david-frum-little-green-footballs-media-matters-excitable-andy/
franco 2 // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:46 am
anchovy,
Devastating. Frum should give up before he embarrases himself further.
“Actually, I, like most conservatives, do not advocate groupthink or demand people rigidly stick to the “company line.” We actually have a simpler request: We just want people who are billed as Republicans and conservatives to actually be on the same side we are. The editorial pages in the newspapers slant liberal. The columnists slant liberal. Even the news in the newspapers slants liberal. Hell, even the TV shows and movies slant liberal. So finally, after all that, you run across a “conservative” in the mainstream media giving an opinion and guess what? He’s been given a platform to speak because he agrees with the liberals. That’s what people like David Frum get paid to do, I’m sick of it, and I’m not doing anything else to reward people like him, including allowing them to get into the Blogads Conservative Hive.”
Note Frum’s supporters are all Democrats. What’s that tell you? By the way “DFL is a big fat idiot” If I had the spare time like Franken did, (or if DFL was anyone remotely important) I’d go through his posts and take every joke and statement out of context and make a list. As it stands Limbaugh has been talking three hours a day five days a week for 15 years making all kinds of jokes and funny tongue-in-cheek speculations. These lists are pretty lame if you ask me. These folks are AFRAID to listen to Limbaugh lest he sway their feeble minds.
CentristNYER is a LIAR as he completely misrepresents himself. He’s a Democrat strongly on the left-wing of the party. He hasn’t posted anything other than standard DNC talking points.
Now I must go make a living and pay my taxes so that the losers clamoring for socialism because they can’t support themselves can keep their food stamps.
Bye y’all til next time.
easton // Jul 1, 2010 at 11:51 am
I simply do not understand how it is that so many Right wingers do not understand that there is a great middle ground of public opinion, that it is not a matter of simply turning out your base to win elections. Frum is appealing to the middle ground making the pitch for the Conservative candidates using language the middle can understand and respect. I have voted for Republicans in the past, Tom Kean, Christie Todd Whitman, Reagan, Papa Bush, etc. because they spoke in a way that was not offensive and idiotic. Democrats had the sense to welcome a pretty large number of Centrists, and it is why they have such a huge majority in the Senate, winning in states they pretty much have no business winning in. Based on Geography, Republicans already have a built in advantage in that rural, small population, and conservative states send as many Senators and big, liberal California. You gotta be quite the wingnut not to be able to win as a Republican in these states.
Right Wing Nut House » HAWKINS AND THE TRAGIC FLAW OF THE IDEOLOGUES // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:14 pm
[...] in Hawkins’ response to Frum’s pique over the ad controversy, Hawkins claims that he and other conservatives don’t mind being [...]
DeepSouthPopulist // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Rabiner and Franco, I will respond later if this discussion is still going.
LFC,
1) Limbaugh has been on the air 15 hours a week for 20 years. Of course, he will make factual errors from time to time.
2) Just about all of those other quotes that are not factual errors are taken out of context on purpose.
3) Al Franken’s commentary is a partisan interpretation of events just like Limbaugh’s, so if you don’t think Rush is reliable based on allegedly non-mainstream partisanship, I can’t see why you or anyone else who objects to Rush on those grounds would rely on Franken for anything.
Al Franken also named his book “Rush Limbaugh is an Idiot” which shows he lacks the intelligence to debate political ideas without resorting to ad hominem attacks and that the people who admire Franken are too stupid to recognize elementary logical fallacies.
4) FAIR is a propaganda organization.
msmilack // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Franco
There is no cultural cleansing in the Democratic party comparable to what the conservatives are doing to themselves; I’m not even aware of cultural cleansing at all; there are fringe members but they can’t castigate or expel less fringe members; they just complain a lot. And there are no pledges to sign from organizations like Club for Growth, and no bloc voting (it there were, Obama’s agenda would have passed on every bill). Why must every criticism of the conservative movement be met by a response of “you do it too”? Such a response makes it impossible for anyone to learn anything.
Rabiner // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Franco 2:
“Freedom does not consist exclusively in the “personal” domain. You and Rabiner have half your brains missing if you don’t understand that the ability to keep the fruits of your labor isn’t a HUGE part of freedom. Regardless of even the most socially conservative Republican can’t really regulate what you and Rabiner do in your bedrooms and I have to say your side is downright paranoid when it comes to these things, but government CAN take money from you quite easily, and force you to do things you otherwise wouldn’t. But I guess you losers don’t pay taxes or own businesses And by the way Democrats are not going to legalize drugs either, unfortunately.”
You’re inability to realize that taxation is a necessary ‘evil’ to have a modern civil society is problematic. And yes, Republicans have been trying to regulate people’s personal decisions for the last 30 years since they became the party of the Moral Majority which is in direct conflict with liberty.
What is it government is forcing you to do? Basically taxation is a fee for living in this country. For all the benefits government provides you have to pay a portion of your income and the more successful you are, the more that fee is since you’re benefiting more than the person who is less successful. Government isn’t forcing you to be a teacher, fire fighter, businessman, agricultural worker. Government doesn’t care how you earn a living so long as you do it legally. So what is government forcing you to do exactly beyond pay taxes that you otherwise wouldn’t normally do?
And Franco 2, considering you’re labeling all the posters you disagree with, I’m sad you left me out.
But if I was born 50 years ago I’d of been voting for Nixon over McGovern.
Rabiner // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:40 pm
DeepSouthPopulist:
You really can’t say people aren’t taking Rush into context but then do the exact thing to Al Franken when saying his book title. Al Franken before being a senator from Minnesota was a satirist whose job it was to push the envelope and say some crazy things. But then during his career he didn’t try to enter the political fray as that same satirist and now seems not nearly as wacky as he once was.
I’d compare Rush Limbaugh in terms of how to the right on the political spectrum he is to someone like Michael Moore. The only difference is Michael Moore has no influence on the Democratic Party on policy positions like Rush seems to have.
Looking forward to hearing from you though.
JJWFromME // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Franco 2: “Oh and BTW JJ, you need not apologize as I was not harmed by your attempt to associate me with Francisco Franco, YOU were.”
I don’t think I’m harmed by National Review’s endorsement of Francisco Franco. But I do apologize for associating your views with 1950s National Review, and suspecting that you named your commenting pseudonym after him. (And as far as errors go, I think this is an understandable one, and forgiven with a minimal amount of charity.)
Rob_654 // Jul 1, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Dang – was that a picture of John Hawkins?
Dude – take some personal responsibility and lose some weight – I sure don’t want to pay for your medical bills when you develop Type 2 Diabetes and you move onto Medicare when you hit 65.
Or is he going to be a good Conservative and not expect the rest of us to pay for his fat related problems when he goes on the public dime?
Krom // Jul 1, 2010 at 3:59 pm
This “controversy” coupled with quite a number of responses in this thread are positively frightening to me. I essentially agree with Frum point and loathe the rhetoric coming from Hawkins (though my reasoning may be slightly different than Frum’s). In short, I think it’s patently idiotic to immerse yourself in a two-party world. We work within a two-party system, but primarily for two basic reasons: because it’s practically more manageable than multi-party systems, and because an inertia of sorts makes it more likely for people to distill into two large competing groups. But *ideas* don’t work that way; reality is complex, problems are complex, solutions are complex, and so on. And the blind ideology that arises from thoroughly subscribing to a two-party world view generally ignores that complexity in a way that’s damaging to the art of coming up with workable solutions.
It’s critically important in a democratic system that participants are able and willing to “switch sides” either when another group is presenting a more compelling set of policies or a more competent leadership, or alternatively when their current group is failing to do so. This consequently relies on the capacity of said participants to make some semblance of an impartial judgment as to what their interests are and who best can serve them. This doesn’t happen when people start tying their political identity into their social identity to the point where they believe they *belong* in one group or the other, and has the unfortunate side effect of driving division between people who otherwise may have much in common.
Politics shift, parties shift, problems shift. So really, I find this idea of “political loyalty” to be utterly repulsive. While I suppose that Frum may still be embroiled in a conservative vs. liberal world view, he’s clearly a thinking man, and generally demonstrates the intellectual power to stand behind his opinions and suggestions, and the intellectual honesty to carefully consider the opinions and suggestions of those he may disagree with. And he usually has the dignity not to vilify his perceived opponents.
There will always be partisan hacks who make a living off of riding a divide that’s largely imaginary, but to hell with them.